Saws Part II – Kenyah King Ho-Sang

1. The PTI argues: “The requirement would be too costly.” This is a proposal claim going against the requirement of the safer saws because its the cost.

2. “Each day we wait for CPSC to act, 10 new amputations occur,” said Greenberg. “We’re throwing away 4,000 fingers each year when safer-saw technology exists. The time for action is now.” This is a consequential claim, and also a proposal claim, explaining the seriousness of the injuries that these unsafe saws cause, and suggesting that something about it be done now.

3. “If consumers want to pay extra for safety, they can buy the safe table saw that is now on the market.” This is a proposal claim. This is true, that they do have the option, but it’s not that easy a decision or business move.

4. “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.  About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations.” This can be a consequential claim and an evaluation claim. The injuries are life changing, and the numbers should result in change.

5. “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. ‘colluded with its competitors’ and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep ‘flesh detection and braking technology’ from being required on table saws.” This is an evaluation claim.

6. “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses.” This is a consequential claim, explaining how dramatic Osorio’s life changed because there was no safety mechanism on the saw.

7. “Today’s unanimous vote by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking  (ANPR)  on table saw blade contact injuries  should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year” This is a proposal claim.

8. “We’re sorry for his loss, however we think the judgment should be for him to take a miter saw safety class and pay for all legal costs associated with Bosch having to attend this most frivolous lawsuit.” This is an evaluation claim. This claim is a bit hard. Although it is not all of Bosch’s fault, the seriousness of the consumer’s injury should not be lessened.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Kenyah King Ho-Sang. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Saws Part II – Kenyah King Ho-Sang

  1. davidbdale says:

    Nice work, Kenyah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s